Elbowing God Out

The ruling barring "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance shares a similar hubris that contributed to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Back when I possessed the charming innocence of a twelve-year-old, I took offense at the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance. Why, I wondered, was I expected to pledge my allegiance to a flag? Proclaiming loyalty to my country I could understand, but to a piece of fabric?

Moreover, as I had concluded with unshakable, preadolescent self-confidence that human existence was nothing more than a cosmic accident, I found the phrase "under God" equally offensive.

So while my classmates were loudly reciting the full text of the Pledge of Allegiance, I was quietly editing my own recitation: I pledge allegiance... to the United States of America... one nation... indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

By my final year in high school, however, having acquired a sufficient measure of sophistication to appreciate the importance of symbolism, I no longer resented being asked to swear loyalty to a flag. But we weren't reciting the Pledge of Allegiance any more, so I had no chance to mend my ways.

The phrase "under God" struck me as a comforting expression of humility.

I was also less certain concerning the existence of a Creator. Six years of secondary education had opened my eyes to a universe so enormously complex that to embrace any world view as extreme as atheism seemed the height of arrogance. The phrase "under God," therefore, struck me as a comforting expression of humility, that we as a nation recognized the grandeur of our universe and conceded its unfathomability.

Perhaps the circuit court judges who ruled the phrase "under God" unconstitutional might have interpreted the law with more humility if they had familiarized themselves not only with the letter, but with the spirit of the Constitution. Perhaps they might have better understood the intent of the Framers if they had read, or remembered, the words of Alexander Hamilton: "The sacred rights of mankind... are written, as with a sun beam in the whole of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

If the founding fathers weren't afraid of mentioning God in the Declaration of Independence, why should we fear the utterance of His name in our schools?

Considering the many references to the Almighty among the writings of the Framers of the Constitution, it's astonishing how often we hear the Constitution invoked as the basis for expurgating every reference to God from the public arena. If the founding fathers weren't afraid of mentioning God in the Declaration of Independence, why should we fear the utterance of His name in our courthouses or schools? But many among us are afraid, afraid with a fear born of insecurity.

Indeed, what is more terrifying than the unknown, and what is less known than what awaits us when we depart this mortal coil? As Prince Hamlet pondered: "To sleep? Perchance to dream! Ay, there's the rub." For the devout atheist, there is no greater dread than the haunting suspicion that he might be wrong, that there might truly be a Creator and an accounting before Him upon arrival in the hereafter. To the atheist, every reference to God is an unwelcome reminder that the rest of the world is not so certain that our existence is random and without purpose.

The great Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik summed it up like this: "All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security. A person who is secure cannot be an extremist." And, indeed, extremism in the form of radical religion or radical nihilism is one and the same. The 19th century anarchist used techniques not unlike the suicide bomber of today to advance his own variety of jihad. The modern anarchist uses manipulation of the law to advance his cause, supremely confidant that he understands the Constitution better than its authors.

The Talmud describes how, during the last days of the second Temple in Jerusalem, the Jewish people observed the law of the Torah meticulously according to its letter. But they failed to look beyond the letter of the law, to strive for understanding and fulfilling of the spirit of the law, to labor in applying the essence of the law toward the transformation of their character. This failure, together with a senseless hatred born of mutual suspicion, mutual contempt and, ultimately, the uncompromising assertion of their own egos, resulted in the destruction of the Temple, the deaths of millions of Jews, and the beginning of our long, dark exile scattered among the nations of the earth.

The word ego is in fact an acronym for Elbow God Out.

It has been observed that the word ego is in fact an acronym for Elbow God Out. A daily reminder that we should receive our national freedoms with humility is among the surest means of preserving those freedoms for our children. Close to two thousand years ago, instead of subduing their egos before the Highest Authority, instead of subjugating their ideological differences to the pursuit of shalom, peace, the Jews distorted Divine law to serve their own agendas, thereby sealing their fate and the fate of the Temple.

The sages teach that any generation that does not rebuild the Temple is considered to have destroyed it. But if we return to the law with humility and reverence, then we can truly hope to rebuild that which for so long has been lost.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 29

(29)
Anonymous,
October 23, 2012 2:42 AM

Respect

The words "under God" were never in the original Pledge of Allegiance. As users before me have pointed out, they were only added on the 1950s with the express purpose of showing off how superior "Christian" America was to the "atheistic" USSR. It was conceived purely in arrogance and has nothing to do with respecting theists of all kinds, only with respecting Christianity and Catholicism. (I keenly remember the day when I would not stand for the pledge, and my classmates flung verbal abuse and accusations of being a morally depraved communist at me, while the teacher almost sent me to detention for not having participated.) Besides the atheists and non-religious people whom the current Pledge so blatantly disregards, other religious groups such as the Quakers have taken issue with the Pledge as well. (Quakers consider swearing oaths, even in a court of law, to be idolatrous, because to them no physical emblem of a power should take the place of direct worship of G-d.) State-mandated recognition of a higher power leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans who know that it is not the government's place to legislate religious profession.

(28)
Dina Normatova,
July 11, 2002 12:00 AM

Your artical really touched me. I also want to say that, I also belive that if you don't rebuild the Bais Hamigdash (The Temple) it is if we have destroyed it. Please keepSending me this heart touching articals.
Thank You!

(27)
Dutch,
July 11, 2002 12:00 AM

Seperation between Church and State

First of all I love your site. That being said I do believe on this one you miss the mark. I have been in many schools growing up. Depending on what school you go to, in witch town, and what religion is in control, you must pray to there God at every meeting. I love God and have him in my life always. The reason it is important to keep Churh out of State is clear if you grow up in most places in the worl. I have spent a lot of time in the Southern states while growing up where the Flag is used for hate. When you say the Pledge you are expected to keep to there rules and there hate. I those small towns one religion is in control. Where I may not have a problem with the Pledge for me many who do not believe as you and I must in some places recite the Pledge or be beat up after school. I feel that protecting that seperation is the reason we are Americans not Arabs, Jews, Christians etc.... We are Americans all. One religion can not talk control or it could push all other thought out.

(26)
Robert Tolchin,
July 11, 2002 12:00 AM

Severely misguided

Your comments about the pledge of allegiance demonstrate that you really haven't thought this issue through.
America is not a religious state. It does not owe its existence to a religious body. The fundamental aspect of America is that it is a land for all people, of all beliefs, including religious and atheist. That you and I might disagree with the atheists, the pagans, and the Christians who live here is our right. But they are free to disagree with us, too.
You can't force people to understand or appreciate what "God" is. Ultimately, the existence of atheists and worshipers of other religions serves to make us stronger. If everyone is of a similar mindset, it is easy to forget what the mindset is all about. If you have to confront people who disagree with you, it forces you to explore a deeper understanding of your own beliefs. For example, as frustrating as it is to argue with "Jews for Jesus" missionaries, doesn't arguing with them force you to go back to the sources they cite and deepen your understanding of why they're wrong? Ultimately, this dialogue is good for you. Hashem put a yetzer ha-rah into the world for a reason. You need black in order to truly appreciate how bright white is.
The "God" in the pledge of allegiance is not Hashem, it is Jesus, at least according to most Americans. Contrary to what you seem to think, most Americans when they here "under God" are not thinking of humility, but are rather thinking that America is Divinely ordained and has God on its side, which actually leads to arrogance and intolerance. Remember, these words do not date back to the Declaration of Independence, but were added during the Cold War in an effort to show superiority to the Russian Communists. America of the 1950s was not very tolerant of different views at all; remember how many scholars, actors, and artists were blacklisted, and remember Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Far from being arrogant or misguided, the Ninth Circuit's decision barring the words "under God" is actually an enlightened ruling that checks arrogance, encourages humility, and leaves religious belief where it belongs: in the hearts and minds of citizens, not in the official policies of a secular state.

(25)
Avi Penkower,
July 9, 2002 12:00 AM

I humbly disagree.

I believe the decision to remove the words "under God" has absolutely nothing to do with hubris, and everything to do with what the United States of America is about.

The United States was established by white Protestants, but they, and those who followed them, made heroic efforts to make the U.S. a haven for everyone, regardless of ethnic or religious background. One of the ethnic/religious groups that have most benefited from this attempt has been the Jews, and I believe the Jewish people owe a debt of gratitude to the United States, for enforcing individual liberties. (I do not mean to ignore the fact that there have been many times when racism and anti-minority actions, including of course anti-semitism, were rampant in the U.S. I am simply making the point that these were exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule.)

Had the United States not been founded on individual liberties, Jews would have had far greater difficulties than they did. As a result, I believe that it is our duty, both as "menschen", and as Jews, to support separation of religion and State in the U.S., whenever possible.

Finally, I take this opportunity to remind my fellow Jews the world over, than the true home of the Jews is Eretz Yisrael. Israel is the ONE land where Jews can live "under God", and any Jew who believes in God, and postpones moving to His land - the land He gave the Jews, is in reality rejecting God's gift.

(24)
Jacob Scharff,
July 9, 2002 12:00 AM

Religion and Government cannot be seperated...

As a Ben Noach who follows the Sheva` Mitswoth (Seven Laws of Noach), and an American, I am firmly against the removal of the phrase "under God" from our pledge of allegiance.

The founding fathers of this country, in their great wisdom, stated that all human beings have an unalienable right to life, liberty and property. These principles were an echo of what the Torah says (i.e. theft is forbidden - thus, right to property... murder is forbidden - thus, right to life... etc.). An unalienable right, as opposed to a privelege, is something that can never be taken away (by legislation or otherwise).

So, whom did they contend had granted these rights to humanity? The only one who is capable of doing so - their Creator, Hashem. If you remove the Creator from the equation, then from where do we know we have these rights?

If you remove the source, then you remove the cause. Imagine you cut down the trunk of a tree... will the branches continue magically floating in the air, once it's gone? I think not.

In the same way will our rights be abolished (God forbid).

(23)
Martin Cury,
July 9, 2002 12:00 AM

I believe, as a Jew, that the only alligience required is to HaShem. Further, allegance to anything else is tantamount to idolatry. I was born in the US and I do love this country because of the freedoms afforded. I would serve in the Armed Forces to protect it. I don't think that I would knowingly put my self in a suicide mission for the country. The under G-d issue is academic since I belive the pledge to be idolatry. However, this not being the case, there is nothing wrong with "Under G-d" in the pledge. May it should be, I pledge allegance to HaShem and ask for protection of the US.

(22)
BOOMER JACKSON,
July 9, 2002 12:00 AM

The Root

First let me say that your article is wonderfully written. Now to the root. God is the foundation of our country. Not Alah. Not Buddah. Not any other man made god. Only God Almighty. He was in the thoughts and hearts of the framers of our constitution and the writters of our declaration of independence. Please, those who will howl otherwise have not done their homework and are relying in the misinformation of others. Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. We are all, those who believe and those who don't, living on the blessing
God has poured out on this country because of the belief in Him of those who preceeded us. This issue goes much deeper than the nation though. We need Him in our daily lives, even in every minute, down to the breath. It is the same God who blesses the nation that gives each of us each breath. To the unbelievers, go ahead and take God out of everything you see do and feel. Subject subsequent generations from knowing Him and see what the product is. The evidence is already at hand. Look at the chaos of our schools, the "me first" mentality of our society, and the lack of moral responsibility of our corporate leaders. Decay is already at hand. To those who don't believe look at your 401k and the markets. People cry out - Put them in jail - they stole from us - they should have thought about the stock holders! Why? They were just doing what you say you should be able to do. With out God chaos reigns. That is why He was and still is so central to this nation and to each person. If if this ruffles so feathers so be it. Take it to the root. If you reject God - do it all they way and try this - refuse to take anything He gives you. Take off all your clothes, go stand in a field and refuse to breathe the breath He has given you. Clamp your hands over you mouth and nose, try with all of your might, maybe you will have the strenth to passout. But when you wake up, naked, laying on the ground, breathing, realize this, you have just encountered Gods grace because of the breath you just breathed. And if you haven't been arrested yet for publice nudity you have also experienced His mercy. The Root, we are here because of his grace, the same as this country. Giving Him the credit is the least we can do.

God Bless - Boomer

(21)
Anonymous,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

Brilliant writing

This information is superb and your thought processes are a sign of a brilliant mind. I am more taken by your bravery in sharing your heart so clearly than I am by commenting on the pledge of allegiance. Who were your mentors because they, as well, are to be commended.

(20)
Brenda Prickett,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

The article by Yonason Goldson was brillant

The article by Yonason Goldson was a
brillant piece of work. It should be
burnt into the hearts of everyone who
takes their freedom casually.Too many
times we don't know what we have until
we lose it. Let us pray that the people
don't wake up one day and find every-
thing we take for granted is just a
bygone memory. Thank you for your work.

(19)
John Agrusa,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

edited

That’s the point that makes the USA different than all nations on earth. It’s when one group claims they are more = that the fanaticism or EGO is born. We are created equal with unable rights granted by GOD.

(18)
Anonymous,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

Sign of the times....

If you don't mind the commentary of a Gentile (who loves Jewish people and Israel) the removal of God from the pledge is part of the snowball that started with the removal of prayer from schools. And what are our students like now? I taught in an alternative school and when I asked the boys what their life aspirations were, they told me, "A pimp." Evidently, they think it's a job where they do nothing and women bring them money and give them sex. I've sat in the graduation of a religious school. The GPAs were higher and I heard apirations from all of them like: nuclear physicist, neurosurgeon, nurse practitioner...The point is, God gives us purpose. First the pledge, then the snowball is released to wipe God from monuments, songs, tv shows...They are already removing "Touched by an Angel" from tv because they mention God. It's part of the bigger picture that leads to religious persecution. When you take away God, you give free reign to the "other guy" because people are always going to look for something greater than themselves for power and strength. If not God, then....who??? I, personally, am not so crazy about the alternative.

(17)
Anonymous,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

If we take God out of our country then who will Bless America?

(16)
,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

Under who?

The Pledge of Allegiance should not have a reference to any religeous entity if the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against an establishment of religeon is to observed.
The phrase "under G-d' was added in 1954 in response to the godless evil empire the Soviet Union. I learned the pledge without the phrase and have never inserted those words when I recite it.
The pledge is made to our nation and it's symbol. One's devotion to Hashem should not be a matter of legislation but should be one of personal choice and the expression thereof should take place in one's place of worship or one's home, not in public school.

(15)
,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

It is so much more important to keep G-D in our hearts and actions than in some pledge.

(14)
Lee Tracy,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

A different perspective

This is directed, not to Yonason, but to those who argue that we should be deferential to others who do not believe in G-d or have different perceptions of G-d--
Yonason and I had the same experience as children. I had a lot of other uncomfortable experiences, since my mom, while Jewish, liked going to church and not shul. It's a long story. But I grew up terribly conflicted and uncomfortable. I remember Sunday School with the teacher telling us all about the Jews and all their failings, knowing that I was part of this miserably disobedient and failed group. I lived in New Zealand and England as a child, and these countries have state religions and real Christian prayers in school. I was often conflicted and uncomfortable. But as uncomfortable as I was, and as often as my knee-jerk reaction to Yonason would be to think of the feelings of the little kids saying "G-d" or "Jesus" against their will or their parents' will, I wonder whether at least for us Jews, G-d INTENDS for us to be uncomfortable and challenged by mainstream society. It certainly seems that much of halacha is geared towards keeping Jews from falling asleep, from becoming _too_ comfortable with the majority. I wonder at the increasingly "safe" world we make for our children, where there are no rough edges, no danger, and no spontaneity, where no one can be offended by anyone. Surely a large part of Jewish survival has been a fierce embracing of being the Other, the uncomfortable outsider. In other words, do we do more harm than good by thinking of others' feelings? I am certainly a stronger Jew today for the soulsearching I had to undertake as a result of my mishmosh of a religious background and being made to participate in majority practice and ritual.

(13)
Marie Poore,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

Beautifully written! One line in part really caught my eye,"transformation of character". I believe God gave us His Word for that very purpose. Yes, we do have a choice in what we become and even to believe or not believe in Him. I think people become atheists because they think God has failed them in some way, not given them what they wanted, forgetting that God is concerned with character building and not material concerns. Can anyone say that at some point in their lives they have not prayed to God for something? As the saying goes "there are no atheists in foxholes". Who are they then talking to at the end of their lives? A rock? No, everyone in their heart of hearts wants there to be a God looking out for us, but when they don't understand what He is doing or don't get something they want they discard God as a fraud. We will never know the answers to it all until we reach the other side and see God. People don't want to wait, they want the answer NOW and God doesnt't work that way. He is busy character building, we just don't realize or accept that. Just as a child who doesn't get his way and "punishes" his parents by not talking to or acknowledging his parents, so humankind is trying to erase all praying and acknowledgement of God. But that doesn't work with the parents and it won't work with God. He is still there.
Waiting for us.

(12)
Dovid Travers,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

Freedom of Religion?

The comments from the Anonymous responder do make a lot of sense, yet what is fine in theory does not always bare fruit in practice. The originators of the U.S constitution were all religious individuals and strove to protect the individual's rights to practice and keep their own beliefs free from persecution.
What we have seen in recent times is a backlash, a removal of belief in The Almighty, a Supernal Lifeforce in the Universe.

As a consequence people grow up lacking true humility and believing in their rights before a belief in doing what is right.
The U.S.A is a great country, all the more so for the freedoms it holds so sacred, but without a true foundation these freedoms can be manipulated to represent views and ideas contrary to their original intended meanings.

Freedom of religion is not the same thing as freedom from religion. The first creates a rich and vibrant society full of tolerance, compassion and care for others, the latter is what Communism tried to implement.

(11)
Anonymous,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

Are we more concerned with pleasing God or man?

I had to share my two bits after reading many of the visitor comments following this excellent article.

America was founded as a nation that put her faith in God. A sampling of the collective writings of the framers of the constitution shows us that the Bible was quoted FAR more often than ANY other person, or resource. I believe that is why we have been blessed. God will bless any nation that truly honors Him and desires to live by His precepts. Right now I believe that we are living off of the momentum of previous generations who were righteous and humbled themselves before Him (though they may have made mistakes as we all do). To me the question is not, "who does this wording hurt or who does it offend" but rather we need to ask ourselves how can we keep from further offending the Almighty whose help we need more than ever, at this time in history? A vocal and easily offended minority did not make this nation great. GOD DID! And He can also bring this nation down.

I know that for many these words mean nothing and their prayer to "God" is little more than a feel-good lip service. Neverthless the truth remains that the more we remove God out of the public sector, the worse off we become as a nation, on every level.

The most foolish thing we can do right now is to elbow Him out when we should be calling on His Name in Humility and asking for His help and salvation and chesed (His mercy)....

God is REAL and His eyelids test the sons of men. He weighs nations on his scale and sifts them in His wisdom. And He offers GRACE to all who remember Him and call upon Him in humility and truth.

(10)
Anonymous,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

This is in response to Yonason Goldson's article about
removing "under God" from the pledge. I am absolutely
for removing "under God" from the pledge. Everyone
forgets to mention that "under God" did not appear in
the original pledge. The whole point is that in
America we do not have to take a religious oath to
have civil liberties. This does not mean one is
anti-God, it means we have to freedom to chose. Our
forefathers did not qualify "liberty and justice for
all" with any mandatory oath to a God. We are a free
country not a theocracy. America has 2000 different
religious traditions, not all monotheistic. Your civil
liberties don't depend on your religious beliefs.

This should be particularly important for Jews who
have been persecuted for not making oaths to the
religious faith of a nation- be they Romans, or
Inquisitors, or Nazi, etc. Each one of those
persecutions started off with an allegiance being
sworn to a state God. Our government is to remain
neutral on references to God, but that doesn't mean
religious leaders have to. America has the most
religious freedom; therefore, I don't feel any panic
if all governmental references to God are removed and
are all left to religious leaders. God is everywhere,
even if they remove all references to Him in state
buildings. Many societies have gone further than the
United States and removed references and even banned
God, yet still God exists, so, no I am not worried.
God is still there.

The forefather's of America were well aware of this
and in 'Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious
Assessments' (1785) it is written:

"... Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to
embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which
we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an
equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet
yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If
this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God,
not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must
an account of it be rendered...".

So while I may believe in God, I do not have the right
to force others to. Government is supposed to remain
neutral on religion. Religious traditions in America
have TV, radio, houses of worship all to practice
their faith and they are not persecuted.

I am glad they made the decision that "under God" was
unconstitutional. There is a large number of
fundamentalist Christians that are trying to turn
America into a Christian theocracy. That can only mean
trouble for Jews.

(9)
Rebecca W.,
July 8, 2002 12:00 AM

Free Will

Only time will tell whatis the best solution to this dilemma. However, G-d gave us a free will, although he knows what we will choose he still gives us the possibility to choose. Maybe the removal of this sentence will bring people more close to him and eventually it will also bring back "under God" to the pledge.

(8)
Anonymous,
July 7, 2002 12:00 AM

"But if we return to the law with humility and reverence"

How can you return then if in returning you return through recitation and retoric? There is a difference between true return and return through brainwashing...

for if one recites enough... will he not see without seeing and hear without hearing... and is that not what has been sought?

Sure you may have been one of the lucky ones to realize this... but what about the others? Should one force them to 'state' when they do not understand?

(7)
Anonymous,
July 7, 2002 12:00 AM

Dont Confuse "God" with Hashem!

I find nothing wrong with the word "God" in the pledge. Yet it is only a word, with significance given by the mind of the beholder. According to Judaism, Hashem owns the Universe, and we are "under Hashem" already. It is in individual Jewish and Gentile hearts and minds, and actions that Hashem transforms the world, not by forced recitation of some national magic formula. The judge was right. Will he be overturned...we'll see.

(6)
Anonymous,
July 7, 2002 12:00 AM

Red Herring

the 9th circuit is an extremist left wing body which has the distinction of being the most overruled court in america. why would they come up with such a ruling at this time of unparalleled patriotism? consider the time tested problem/reaction/solution syndrome. suppose politicians harness the outrage that this decision brings
into more "pro God" legislation-this is a good thing? once government has a say through legislation or funding of
religion or religious institutions they tend to gain more control. in san francisco the government mandated to a christian entity that they must not discriminate against homosexuals in hiring. it is a slippery slope when 'mobocracy' can potentially mandate politically correct policies upon religious entities. much to their credit, the christian organization mentioned above told the government to "KEEP THE MONEY"! we jews just need to be TORAH JEWS and not join in popular consensus which ultimately has the effect of secularing our faith in the name of a 'one size fits all' deity.

(5)
Lewis Sckolnick,
July 7, 2002 12:00 AM

Under G-d

There is no place for "Under G-d".
There is no place for "In G-d We Trust".
Those terms go against the Constitution.
Those terms insult those who do not believe.

(4)
Anonymous,
July 7, 2002 12:00 AM

God is certainly powerful enough to prove to everyone that He exists. But He doesn't, so that we can have free choice, and be responsible for our own decisions. That's what the judges are trying to protect: free choice. Would it be better for students to have faith in God than not? Yes. But we can't force them to, and shouldn't try. Students who believe in God will still be able to find ways to express their faith.

(3)
Joanne Millstone,
July 7, 2002 12:00 AM

God and Public Schools

First off, I must admit that I, too, am not comfortable with the whole excision of "Under God". I'm used to saying that phrase, and as I do believe in G-d, it is an affirmation for me.

Saying that, I must be the Devil's Advocate here and state that a significant number of my fellow countrymen don't believe in G-d as I do. They may be Buddhists, Muslim (yes, we have a number of them here), Hindus, all sorts and yes, Atheists too. And it is wrong to make them effectively pray to a deity they don't believe in. Because when you open that door, at what point do you shut it? I am old enough to remember what it was like to be a Jew in school and feeling forced to pray to Jesus Christ. To a very young child, it felt like spiritual rape. So, repeating my question, at what point do we stop?

America is the very first country that refused to establish a state religion, and that is her heritage. To keep this country free from religious sectarianism, which as you pointed out is extremely dangerous, the seperation of Church and State must be preserved. That means that prayers belong in the home and in the church, not in any publically funded institution. At least so it is in the U.S. If this becomes a problem, and it is not enough to pray at home, at schul (or other church) or in your heart, then you really must consider moving to a country where they have a state religion that fits your needs.

(2)
Michael Rosen,
July 7, 2002 12:00 AM

One nation, too eminently divisible.

I am an American patriot. I am a committed Jew. And on both religious and secular political grounds, I have wanted for years to see those two words removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

On religious grounds, I support removing these words because HaShem did not give the Torah to divide humanity, but to unite us. While men will divide themselves over the existence of the One God, the people whom HaShem has chosen must not force the division. Rather, we uphold the truth as it is given us, and we wait for the enemies of that truth to force the issue. Just as the Israelites did not attack in Canaan, but asked for permission to pass and were rebuffed with force, so we today must defend our beliefs, but never, ever, ever force them on others. To require adherence to theistic beliefs as a condition of loyalty to America is to spit on the Torah.

On political grounds, I now have countrymen who cannot pledge their allegiance without lying. And that is damnable.

HaShem, it is said, once lamented that He would rather His people remembered his Teaching and forgot Him.

(1)
Bob Hilliard,
July 7, 2002 12:00 AM

Pledge of Allegiance

Greetings!

I must take issue with your approach to Elbowing God Out. 'Tis true that our founding fathers were quite religious and they involked the name of God, divinity, providence on many an occasion in almost all of our national documents from the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration of Independence. But they were very careful not to mention any of those words in the Constitution. That was not an oversight. It was by design. FREEDOM OF RELIGION like FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a basic and fundamental principle in this great nation of ours.

I am sending along a copy of what is going out in my little newsletter this month to give you an idea of what this decision is all about. One of the other things that makes America great is that we protect minority rights, even when they are unpopular. Yes, the majority of this nation probably believes that "under God" should be the words for everyone.

I should also point out that the Jehovah Witnesses have won more decisions before the U.S. Supreme Court based upon freedome of religion than any other religion in this country. They refuse to even say the Pledge of Allegiance as it is against their religious beliefs. And, the Supreme Court agreed with them. We are never wrong to protect minority rights even if we don't agree with them and/or they are unpopular.

Which brings me to your comments about the destruction of the Second Temple. There is an old saw that says, "When you get two Jews together, you get three opinions." A search of the Talmud would probably find other Rabbis who do not agree with the position that the Jews brought the destruction upon themselves. As I recall, it was the Romans who destroyed the Temple. Your argument about what the Jews did smacks of the same argument many have made that the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves. We Jews have been trampled upon and murdered for centuries, for no other reason than because we are Jews. And those who destroyed us were simply evil. I don't believe EGO had anything more to do with the destruction of the Tenmple than it did with the Holocaust. Was it EGO that destroyed the first Temple too?

If you haven't read the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court, you might want to go to www.findlaw.com and read the full opinion. From my perspective, as a former teacher of constitutional law, it is an extremely well-reasoned opinion. There are 8 other justices on the Ninth Circuit Court. It will be interesting to see if they even want to get into the fray and hear the case anew. I'm certain there will be a number of appeals and the case may eventually end up before the Supreme Court where the ultimate decision will be made.

I thank you for listening, although I know I've gone on much to long on this issue.

Shalom,

Bob Hilliard

TO PLEDGE OR NOT TO PLEDGE…
THAT IS THE QUESTION?
Ninth Circuit Court Rules Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, held in a 2-1 ruling on June 26 that the pledge of allegiance violates the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state because it includes the phrase ‘under God.’ The decision was written by Senior Judge Alfred T. Goodwin who was appointed to the bench by President Nixon in 1971.

The ruling immediately erupted into a firestorm of criticism throughout the nation. House Majority Leader Dick Armey R-Texas was one of the first to speak on the decision. “The Ninth Circuit couldn’t be more wrong on this one. I hope the court returns all the taxpayer money they have been paid in currency marked, “In God We Trust.” Armey noted, “I’m not ashamed of the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, on the eve of the 226th anniversary of our country’s independence, we should celebrate it.”

The Senate voted unanimously in condemnation, and the House of Representatives voted 416-3 for a similar resolution. Only three House Democrats voted against the resolution. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD, expressed the popular view. “This decision is nuts.” Some folks were reminded of General Anthony McAuliffe’s one-word retort when called upon by the Germans to surrender in the Battle of the Bulge, “NUTS.” “Ridiculous,” said President George Bush. “Most unfortunate ruling,” said New Jersey Governor James McGreevey. “Junk Justice,” declared New York Governor George Pataki.

Supporters of the decision also abound. The American Civil Liberties Union at www.aclu.org, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State at www.au.org, and the American Atheists at www.atheists.org. American Atheists is headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. “We agree 100% with the court,” said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists. “Putting ‘under God’ in the pledge was as inappropriate as declaring our secular nation “under Zeus,” Vishnu or any other deity.”

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Jon Carroll wrote that the ruling was “sensible and obvious. ‘Under God’ is intrusive and unnecessary in a pledge of patriotisim; we’re not speaking as believers, we are speaking as citizens.” “Pagans and atheists and lovers of Vishnu,” he added, “enjoy your moment as fully fledged Americans--but don’t quit your day jobs.” The San Francisco Chronicle coverage at www.sfgate.com is quite complete and most interesting.

Numerous attorneys throughout the country have hailed the decision and believe the decision was the right one, feeling that the ‘under God’ words should never have been added to the Pledge in 1954. They were added at the insistence of the Knights of Columbus and other groups as a “ Cold War antidote to godless Communism.”

Many are asking who is the “crackpot” that brought the suit in the first place. Atheist Michael Newdow, 49, has a bachelor’s degree from Brown University, a medical degree from the University of California at Los Angeles and a law degree from the University of Michigan. He’s no slouch and he filed his claim against the the Elk Grove Unified School District on behalf of his daughter, a second-grader. He has acted as his own attorney from start to finish. He filed a similar suit while residing in Florida, but the suit was dropped when he moved to California and lost legal standing. Newdow even goes so far as to cross “In God We Trust’ off paper money. Since the decision he has received numerous death threats.

U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, the state of California and the Elk Grove Unified School District have said they will ask the court to rehear the case. There are many who believe that the decision will eventually be overturned. It is also believed that much of the public outcry is that since September 11, Americans have shown renewed interest in reciting the pledge and singing patriotic songs such as “God Bless America.”

Finally, who is Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, 78, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Before his appointment to the Court of Appeals, Goodwin had a long career as a lawyer and judge. A westerner, born in Washington and raised in Oregon, he joined the army in World War II, earned his bachelor’s and law degree at the University of Oregon and practiced law in Eugene, Ore. In 1960, Republican Governor Mark Hatfield appointed him to the Oregon Supreme Court. A modest man, he has kept a low profile thoughout his career which was thwarted dramatically by his opinion in the Pledge of Allegiance case. The final outcome about the Pledge may be many months away.

Visit www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm for an excellent short history of the Pledge of Allegiance by Dr. John W. Baer. Visit www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/in-god-we-trust.html for the U.S. Treasury Department’s short history of the phrase.

I've been striving to get more into spirituality. But it seems that every time I make some progress, I find myself slipping right back to where I started. I'm getting discouraged and feel like a failure. Can you help?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Spiritual slumps are a natural part of spiritual growth. There is a cycle that people go through when at times they feel closer to God and at times more distant. In the words of the Kabbalists, it is "two steps forward and one step back." So although you feel you are slipping, know that this is a natural process. The main thing is to look at your overall progress (over months or years) and be able to see how far you've come!

This is actually God's ingenious way of motivating us further. The sages compare this to teaching a baby how to walk. When the parent is holding on, the baby shrieks with delight and is under the illusion that he knows how to walk. Yet suddenly, when the parent lets go, the child panics, wobbles and may even fall.

At such times when we feel spiritually "down," that is often because God is letting go, giving us the great gift of independence. In some ways, these are the times when we can actually grow the most. For if we can move ourselves just a little bit forward, we truly acquire a level of sanctity that is ours forever.

Here is a practical tool to help pull you out of the doldrums. The Sefer HaChinuch speaks about a great principle in spiritual growth: "The external awakens the internal." This means that although we may not experience immediate feelings of closeness to God, eventually, by continuing to conduct ourselves in such a manner, this physical behavior will have an impact on our spiritual selves and will help us succeed. (A similar idea is discussed by psychologists who say: "Smile and you will feel happy.")

That is the power of Torah commandments. Even if we may not feel like giving charity or praying at this particular moment, by having a "mitzvah" obligation to do so, we are in a framework to become inspired. At that point we can infuse that act of charity or prayer with all the meaning and lift it can provide. But if we'd wait until being inspired, we might be waiting a very long time.

May the Almighty bless you with the clarity to see your progress, and may you do so with joy.

In 1940, a boatload 1,600 Jewish immigrants fleeing Hitler's ovens was denied entry into the port of Haifa; the British deported them to the island of Mauritius. At the time, the British had acceded to Arab demands and restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The urgent plight of European Jewry generated an "illegal" immigration movement, but the British were vigilant in denying entry. Some ships, such as the Struma, sunk and their hundreds of passengers killed.

If you seize too much, you are left with nothing. If you take less, you may retain it (Rosh Hashanah 4b).

Sometimes our appetites are insatiable; more accurately, we act as though they were insatiable. The Midrash states that a person may never be satisfied. "If he has one hundred, he wants two hundred. If he gets two hundred, he wants four hundred" (Koheles Rabbah 1:34). How often have we seen people whose insatiable desire for material wealth resulted in their losing everything, much like the gambler whose constant urge to win results in total loss.

People's bodies are finite, and their actual needs are limited. The endless pursuit for more wealth than they can use is nothing more than an elusive belief that they can live forever (Psalms 49:10).

The one part of us which is indeed infinite is our neshamah (soul), which, being of Divine origin, can crave and achieve infinity and eternity, and such craving is characteristic of spiritual growth.

How strange that we tend to give the body much more than it can possibly handle, and the neshamah so much less than it needs!